Talk:George W. Bush
"Storm Front, Part II" Archival Footage Should we have a page for Tony Blair too? zsingaya 20:53, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Yes, if we have one for George W. Bush. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 13:58, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::Those images in "Storm Front" sort of opened a can of worms. We have Richard M. Nixon under the category humans, yet Bush is an "Enterprise performer"? Tough Little Ship 14:11, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::How did we handle this for Stephen Hawking? -- he was both performing in an episode, and a character in and of himself in the Star Trek universe. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:14, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::I would suggest that performers only include people who specifically acted to get on screen. Cause Hawking was in the card game, but if it's only IRL Stockfootage (like, FDR, Nixon, Bush and Blair) it should by from Trek's pov. - AJHalliwell 14:23, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::Don't forget Hitler. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:39, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Well in the case of Hawking, I should probably point out Maury Ginsberg (actor) as Maury Ginsberg. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) **That's a different case, as Maury the actor was playing a character who had the same name as him but a different identity and history. **Hawking, Bush, Hitler etc have portrayed themselves on film in Trek. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:45, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I believe I was answering "How did we handle this for Stephen Hawking?" I don't really see Bush, Hitler, etc as portraying themselves, as that was archived footage, not a role they were cast/credited for. --Alan del Beccio 19:55, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) **** Would it not be better if only people who actually spoke be considered Star Trek performers? Tough Little Ship 22:18, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *****That would leave out certain non-speaking actors, such as Janos Prohaska (who played the Horta in TOS, amongst other creatures), and even Mark Allen Shepherd, who played Morn. Zsingaya | ''Talk'' 22:25, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ******Sites such as imdb lists uncredited, archive footage as performers playing themselves in roles, so I don't see why we would be any different. Also, if we don't credit these appearances as roles, what else is there to write about them? All we know is that they exist and are a part of history before the time that Star Trek: Enterprise is set. There is no canonical "proof" that they served the same role in the Star Trek universe as they did in real life. For example, there is no "evidence" that George W. Bush was American President in both universes. For all we know, he could have been a dictator in World War III, one of Khan Noonien Singh's allies in the Eugenics Wars, or the inventor of PADDs! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 23:06, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::::*Good point, Defiant. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:14, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) Although it is an example, I take offence at the dictator comment. But the same would go for Clinton. --TOSrules 23:23, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :How can you spell offense with a c and think he's not a dictator? -Coke 23:29, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::This is not the place for a political debate, respect MA --TOSrules 23:36, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::Then with all due respect, it was a hypothetical scenario so please don't read too much into it. Coke 23:45, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::: I promise not to construct examples that cast people you like as a dictator but then again, that is because I have a health dose of respect. --TOSrules 23:59, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) On a different note, calling someone who was not either a major player, or cast for the role a performer just goes a little to far. Archival footage of a person should be listed as such. Using historical data and listing someone as a performer are two different issues in my mind. --TOSrules 23:36, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::Have the recent changes to the page made it any better? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 00:08, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Something just doesn't seem right about the way the POV shifts all of a sudden from speaking about him in a historic "Trek" persepctive and then suddenly saying he appeared as himself. -Coke 00:09, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) The page now reads as though Bush was definately President in the Star Trek universe. Sorry, but I didn't know that MA allows for speculation. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 00:35, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *It already did in your version, by saying he "was" the president. if you don't like something (I get the feeling that was sarcasm) feel free to change it. -Coke 00:39, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic - I genuinely did not believe that speculation was welcomed on MA. Although I don't like the way the page now reads, I'm unsure as to how to change it. That's why I'm discussing it here, trying to fish for ideas. But after all, this site is a community effort and if most users are okay with the page as it is, I am too. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 00:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) :For what its worth i'm in the same boat as you. It seems awkward but so does anything else. I really don't know why this page is here at all since we don't have pages for other things that were only "seen" in the Trek universe. -Coke 01:04, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) Another page for something just "seen" is Toronto City Hall, which I also do not believe should be a part of MA. However, if users are requesting its existence here, pages for Tony Blair and George W. Bush probably have to be created, too! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 01:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *The existance of these images is a given, they were shown so we have to archive them. What is not given is what we say on these article pages. The fact is, we have no idea what these images mean in trek reality, or even if the timestream was showing another reality, maybe even "ours" as science fiction has been known to toss in such twists. I'm not saying that that is the way it is, but simply showing that we have no idea what these images are saying and filling them in with real life info is not the solution. I propose we simply create a page for Timestream images and make our list there, with a nice note on the bottom saying that we have no way of knowning what these images mean. Jaf 03:31, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf :*Well yeah, I agree with you about we have no idea how different the cirumstances are, but whem I tried taking out some of the questionable info like him being the 43rd president, someone reverted it on the basis that this information is concrete whereas apparently the year his term would have ended is not. Then again my attempts to make the page a single POV were also reverted so I give up. -Coke 03:37, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *This is why I am attempting to resolve the conflict. Do the other parties involved agree to this solution? Jaf 03:39, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf Why is the information seen in the time stream any different then other possible alternate timeline info? I think they should each have their own article, with notes on the bottom about how the timeline may be different. As for (if the article stays seperate) I believe it should be about the character, not a "from production" pov. - AJHalliwell 03:48, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *So why did you revert my "character" POV version and cite POV as part of the reason? Coulda just taken the 2008 out and it would be fine unless I'm missing something. -Coke 03:52, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** Please, lets all try to find some common ground. 1 )We don't know if it's an alternate timeline. Yes, it's a safe bet, but with only disconnected images to work with we have only speculation. 2) Speculation is why this is causing such a fuss. All the arguments are based entirely on subjectivity. 3) If we wish to keep any of our objectivity we have to stick to recording canon. 4) Normal pages for these images are not helping us get there. As for other alternate timelines; if we have pages on MA where we have imbued the truths of our reality as a higher truth then the canon of trek please point them out so that they can also be edited. Jaf 03:57, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf Edit Conflict To be from the Trek point of view, we can't use terms like "currently serving". Also, we don't know he'll be president until 2008, so that's almost speculation. For all we know he's sleeping with his secretary, and will be impeached in 2007. - AJHalliwell 03:16, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Yes, my first version was meant to be from a production point of view as seen in actor pages. You reverted that. I fixed it by making a fully trek point of view and you reverted the second change as well. What exactly do you want, a separate article for Bush's character? -Coke 03:18, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) Time Shift On a slightly different note, but still concerning the timeline reset scene, could the archive footage of only Earth's past indicate that Archer was actually not in an galaxy-wide alternate timeline. I don't think it was ever confirmed by Daniels, Silik or any other authority who was completely aware of what was happening that Archer was in an alternate timeline. Could it be that it was only Earth and an area surrounding the planet (including the moon) that was shifted out of time? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 23:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Er, but in that shift, any future events that concerned earth would also be shifted, wouldn't they? -Coke 23:50, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::I don't see localized time-shifts like that to make sense. If Earth's history changed, the entire history of the universe changed, regardless of the impact. The other species were most likely exactly where they were anyway, but that doesn't mean that they weren't still part of the alternate timeline. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *An interesting hypothetical solution to this problem is a local temporal anomaly with a perimeter which acts like a natural temporal shield. : ) Jaf 03:36, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf Removal of the year he begun service If we remove the year's he served, that is at least 2001 which we know to be true, then should we remove it on Clinton and all other presidents in which the years were never specified?--TOSrules 04:31, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) * There is one difference between Clinton and Bush from the others...we don't know for sure that they were president, whereas we do know that the others were. --Alan del Beccio 04:36, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::*''Grant, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, all of these presidents were never referred to as President, additionally, Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Kennedy are the only ones that we know of their years of service and Johnson we can be sure of the year he begun but not the year he stopped being president. Although we don't know specifically the years he became president, we do know generally when Roosevelt was in office.'' That is what we know, if you only go by cannon. But as far as I understand, we do use minimal earthly information, if we remove that sort of information then we have to remove the distances of ever star system because that to was never canonlly established in Star Trek. That would be a radical shift in MA policy. --TOSrules 00:08, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****You needn't embolden your statement, my child, we can hear you just fine. -BajoranBumpkin 07:12, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think he basically said what I said, a lot longer and a lot louder. --Alan del Beccio 07:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***If I read you correctly, you were saying the opposite of what I was saying in my post. I support keeping the president status, as well as years of service for Bush, minus the year he left office at least till that happens. --TOSrules 07:21, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****Whilst I understand your position, perhaps less is more in this instance. It seems this man is so evil that the mere mention of his name is enough to ignite controversy. -BajoranBumpkin 07:27, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) I was just tring to use that italics bold to point out the diffrence between the canon part of the convo, and my acctual points for the debate. --TOSrules 07:16, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Remember, all conversations are created equal. -BajoranBumpkin 07:17, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)